This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: problems with minimal symbols (without a type)
> > My philosophy is been that it's OK, and sometimes good, to allow
> > in the debugger something that's not allowed in the language, if
> > it makes it easier for the user to do his debugging. Would allowing
> > this as an extension be introducing possible confusion?
>
> Sorry, somehow I missed this question. I agree that sometimes
> extensions are OK, but IMO, they need to have some clear advantage.
> Since there's a just-as-easy way to do the same thing within the
> language, IMO, we shouldn't add such an extension. I think that yes,
> it can introduce confusion, and I could see someone reporting a bug
> if they notice "&(int)global" works.
FTR, sounds good to me. Thanks for taking the time to explain
your thinking as well.
--
Joel